(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff under section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09/12/2006 passed in civil appeal No. 68A/2006 by Additional District Judge, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha confirming the judgment and decree dated 04/02/2006 passed in civil suit No. 162A/2003 by I Civil Judge, Class -II, Basoda, District Vidisha. Plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.
(2.) FACTS necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that plaintiff claimed to be in possession over the suit land admeasuring 4.254 hectare in survey No. 6 situated in village Saloi, Tahsil Ganj Basoda District Vidisha since the time prior to Samvat 2005 (Year 1948). Plaintiff further asserted that he is in possession over the suit land for the last 30 years, uninterrupted, peaceful and continuous doing cultivation and harvesting crops. As such, perfected title by adverse possession against the respondent/State. Having apprehending forcible dispossession therefrom, instant suit has been filed.
(3.) ON the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Upon critical evaluation of the entire evidence on record, trial Court has dismissed the suit. On appeal, first appellate Court has again re -examined the entire oral and documentary evidence brought on record. As a matter of fact, the first appellate Court has taken cognizance of the fact that earlier suit bearing No. 469 -A/1981 was dismissed vide the judgment and decree dated 31/01/1984 by Civil Judge, Class -I, Basoda and the same was upheld in civil appeal No. 203A/96 vide judgment and decree dated 12/12/1996 by III Additional District Judge, Vidisha and further the same withstood judicial scrutiny in Second Appeal No. 105/1997 vide the judgment and decree dated 27/03/2003. However, the statement made before the Court by the plaintiff was contrary to the aforesaid documentary evidence. Besides, in exhibits P/4 to P/11, khasrapanchshala, the plaintiff has not been found to be in possession over the suit land by the first appellate Court. Therefore, the first appellate Court concluded that the appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court was correct. Accordingly, first appellate Court affirming the findings of the trial Court and taking note of the earlier Courts' judgments and decrees in respect of the suit land as detailed in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his uninterrupted, continuous and peaceful possession over the suit land. Hence, dismissed the suit based on adverse possession.